MEETING MINUTES (5)
I
I
MINUTES
COMMUNITY CONSENSUS STEERING COMMIITEE
Wednesday, January 19, 1994
The fifth meeting of the Community Consensus Steering Committee was held Wednesday,
January 19, 1994 at 9: 15 at Clearwater East Library.
PRESENT: Bill Schwob, Committee Chairperson
Vito Nigrelli
Tony Salmon
Elizabeth Mannion
Dr. Naomi Williams
Jim McCurtain
ALSO PRESENT:
Dr. Peter Graves
Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager
Jeff Harper, Director of Administrative Services
Melissa Ellis, Staff Assistant
Johnnie Crawford, Intern
Members from the Steering Committee unable to attend were Janice Case, Stephen Bils, Bob
Bickerstaffe, and Commissioner Deegan.
Dr. Graves opened the meeting by handing out the preliminary results from the community
consensus. This report primarily focused on the results of the total or community consensus
which was made up of the representative sampling reflective of the city's demographic profile
(based on the 1990 census data). Some sub-groups were analyzed briefly in this report.
Bill Schwob asked if the demographic and geographic spreads were satisfactory. Dr. Graves
said that they were satisfactory with a total of 919 questionnaires suitable for processing. He
reduced this number to 512 questionnaires which made up the representative sample. He
explained that his process deliberately over-samples in hopes that all groups needed for study
are included and then, using basically a random process, adjusts downward until percentages
match the known demographics.
Dr. Graves indicated that pages 25 and 26 of this report showed the summarization of the
numbers of respondents in each demographic category. The numbers in the boxes on these two
pages represented the entire sample of 919 respondents.
Tony Salmon asked how many city employees completed the questionnaires. Dr. Graves
1
I
I
answered there were 177 full-time present, 25 part-time present, and 26 past city employees.
Included in the preliminary data was a sub-group analysis on the city employees. Only 15 of
this group were included in the final overall sample used for the total consensus results. He
arrived at this number based on the city's annual report of 1,610 employees.
Tony Salmon pointed out that question number lIon the demographic information sheet of the
questionnaire - "Have you used any city services in the past year?" caused confusion. Dr.
Graves pointed out that question number 7 having to do with employment in the public and
private sectors also seemed to create some confusion among participants.
Bill Schwob noticed that the male and female participants were well balanced - 475 female, 426
males, and 18 left blank.
Vito Nigrelli asked if the age group for 24 and younger was under represented. Dr. Graves
stated that this particular group was most likely under represented, but the actual census data
grouped the 15-19 year olds and the 20-24 year olds. In the 20-24 year old category the
percentage of the total population here was 5.9 %. Dr. Graves explained that the age groups fell
into a bell-shaped curve and that the tailends of this type curve were always difficult to get
through any statistical process.
Dr. Graves explained that the representative sample was based on the following four
demographic categories: age, income level, gender, and ethnic goup. He then asked that the
committee begin reviewing the preliminary results starting with quality of life category. The top
four issues in this category were:
1. An effective, quality police force
2. Safe neighborhoods, parks, and beaches
3. A community committed to quality education
4. Accessible, high quality medical services
He pointed out the "Confidence Interval Report" on page 7 which indicates how the issues tend
to cluster themselves into groups and make natural breaks between these clusters.
Dr. Williams stated that she was a little surprised the issue of "harmonious racial relations" was
positioned so low in the quality of life category indicated by the profile analysis chart comparing
the community consensus ranking to the city employees rankings. She asked Dr. Graves what
the respondents were trying to say by ranking this issue low. Dr. Graves responded by saying
that there were no unimportant issues. Tony Salmon pointed out that the issue of "a vital
business environment" was ranked next to the "harmonious racial relations". Dr. Graves
reminded the Committee that the quality of life category is both an indicator of how things are
and how people would like things to be. He went on to explain that if there had recently been
a period of great racial tension, then 'harmonious racial relations' would have been a hotter issue
in the results. Jim McCurtain pointed out that many of the respondents were white, not
minorities, and they did not perceive race relations as a problem or an issue, whereas the
2
...
I
I
minorities might not share this view. Dr. Graves concurred and asked the group to turn to the
chart on page 5 which shows that 'harmonious racial relations' is ranked number 21 on the total
consensus and number 12 under the black ethnic sub-group. Dr. Graves reminded the
Committee that the questionnaire did not ask people what the biggest problem in Clearwater is,
but to identify which issues are most important to their quality of life. He went on to explain
that if an issue doesn't touch someone personally, then it will not be high in importance on their
list for quality of life.
Tony Salmon pointed out that the top ten items on the quality of life category from the city
employees were basically the same as the top ten items for the total consensus. He went on to
ask Dr. Graves what he would consider a substantive variation in ranking between one
demographic group's ranking and another group's ranking. Dr. Graves responded by saying that
the best way to compare two group's rankings is if the two groups are relative in size to one
another.
Jeff Harper asked Dr. Graves if there was anything in the results which surprised him. Dr.
Graves said there was not, but one of the reasons he was here to present the preliminary results
to the public was so that he could get a better understanding of what the people were saying
when they worded these issues at the brainstorming meetings. However, Dr. Graves noted one
point which stood out under the revenue alternatives, which was the ranking of "increase
revenue through increased tourism" at number 21 out of 49 issues, indicating the city's
reluctance toward tourism promotion. He said people who live in a tourist type town often
would like to get rid of the tourists. Tony Salmon stated that "somebody needs to do a better job
of selling why tourists are important to the city".
The low ranking of "numerous and varied religious choices" was discussed. Perhaps the ranking
of this issue was at the bottom because there are so many religious choices in the community
and there are no problems with ample representation of many denominations.
Jim McCurtain expressed his concern that on anyone day in Pinellas County there are
approximately 300,000 visitors who are very much a part of our tax base as either tourists or
visitors, and they did not participate in this consensus project.
Dr. Graves noted the correlation between the number of respondents who own businesses in
Clearwater, but are not residents. Bill Schwob suggested that when publishing the final results
it should be made clear that the results represent the opinions of the citizens of Clearwater and
of the people who own business here.
Tony Salmon noted the larger differences between the past and future issues under quality of
life. The most obvious differences were between the issues of managed growth, vital business
environment, and housing alternatives for all.
Dr. Graves asked for a clarification on the meaning of "family oriented beaches". Bill Schwob
explained the disruption by college students during Spring break at Clearwater Beach. Elizabeth
3
I
I
Mannion elaborated the basic concerns of beach residents opposed to nude bars on the beach,
as well as the past problem of teenage cruising.
Tony Salmon asked Dr. Graves how the Community Consensus study could be kept alive and
not filed away after a short period of time. Kathy Rice explained to the group that Ruth Ann
Bramson will be in Clearwater with Dr. Graves for the Commission presentation on February
3rd and then will return to facilitate two four-hour strategic planning sessions for budgeting
purposes with the Commission on February 17 and 18, 1994. She went on to explain that the
Commissioners will start budgeting on March 1, 1994.
Tony Salmon noted that the conclusions made from this report are not just budgetary, for
instance it appears that the community needs to be educated as to how important tourism is to
the city. He asked if the Steering Committe should be kept alive to somehow monitor the
implementation of the final results and conclusions.
Dr. Graves encouraged the members of the Steering Committee to track the Commission's
implementation and review this on a periodic basis. He told the group that he did not plan to
give the general public copies of the preliminary report, but to show the public the rankings of
the top 15-20 issues in each of the three categories. His objective during the public meetings
was to stimulate discussion so he could better understand what the public meant when they
worded the issues at the brainstorming sessions.
Bill Schwob suggested that the profile comparison chart between the total consensus and the city
employees not be included in the preliminary results presented to the public by Dr. Graves. Dr.
Graves responded by saying that he included this data in the preliminary report only becase so
many city employees filled out the questionnaire, and this analysis was basically for the Steering
Committee's usage and interest only.
Bill Schwob said Ned Seton asked him if the newspaper would receive copies of the preliminary
results and if this data was public information? Dr. Graves answered that everything done now
is public information. Tony Salmon asked if the newspaper reporters would receive the
preliminary results before or after the four public meetings. Kathy Rice added that the report
was indeed public information and would be available to anyone who asked for a copy.
Dr. Graves view was that the Commissioners, the City staff and the press should all receive
copies of the preliminary report, but that the general public already knew the results. He went
on to explain the difference between the preliminary and final reports of the consensus. The
final report will consist of the conclusions and recommendations developed from the public
feedback meetings, as well as the numbers report.
Kathy Rice suggested that if the availability of the raw data of the preliminary report was not
acceptable to Dr. Graves and the Committee, that we attach a statement from the Steering
Committee to the effect that these results are incomplete and insufficient for drawing summary
conclusions.
4
...
I
I
Jeff Harper asked Dr. Graves how he would interpret the importance of the issues which fell
toward the bottom of the lists, particularly in the quality of life section. In other words how do
you keep from only focusing on the top issues and not cutting off those that have a lower
ranking. Dr. Graves answered that it is all relative, and if there is one thing to remember it is
that the bottom isn't the bottom. He used the analogy of ranking all the Nobel Prize winners in
Physics, the bottom name on that list may be the least important Nobel Prize winner, but it is
still a great achievement to be included on the list at all.
Naomi Williams pointed out the discrepancy in the ranking of child care between the different
income levels. Her opinion was that it would improve the quality of life for everyone if child
care was addressed as a priority for the whole community, regardless of income level. Dr.
Graves responded by saying that most people do not have a community perspective, but operate
from an individual perspective.
The group discussed the idea that specific issues, such as City Hall or the decision to build a
new police station and more specific ideas about the Bluff were not on the questionnaire, and
how many people thought that by completing the questionnaire they would have the opportunity
to vote on these specific issues.
The group agreed that Kathy Rice's suggestion of a cover letter attached to the preliminary
report, putting the data into perspective was a good idea and that it should be signed by both Bill
Schwob and Dr. Graves. The letter, written jointly by Bill Schwob, Tony Salmon, Dr. Graves,
Jeff Harper and Melissa Ellis is as follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 19, 1994
Attached are the preliminary results of the Community Consensus questionnaires. Please note
this is a working document. The data contained within this report are incomplete and
insufficient for drawing summary conclusions.
The public will be asked in Phase III on January 19 and 20 to examine these findings, ask
questions, and provide suggestions before the fianl consensus conclusions are presented to the
City Commission on February 3, 1994.
The meeting concluded at approximately 11:30 am.
5